A Democrat finally says something true about gun control

Leading gun control proponent Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) admitted during a recent interview that none of the anti-firearm policies she and her ilk are currently pushing would have prevented the massacre in Las Vegas.

Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock bought all of his guns legally, passing background checks and building an arsenal without ever throwing any red flags.

Would additional checks on gun purchases have prevented Paddock from carrying out his mass murder? Probably not.

Even leading gun control proponents admit that.

During her appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, host John Dickerson asked Feinstein: “Could there have been any law passed that would’ve stopped him?”

“No,” she answered. “He passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions.”

Currently, gun control advocates are pushing a bevy of proposals which would do anything from increasing the mount of time it takes to pass necessary background checks to purchase firearms to banning certain types of weapons and firearm accessories outright.

In other words, new gun laws under consideration would serve no purpose beyond making it more difficult for law-abiding Americans to purchase firearms.

Meanwhile, there are pretty clear laws on the books prohibiting Americans from harming or killing one another except in limited circumstances involving self defense.

It’s also worth noting that both the Route 91 concert Paddock fired upon and the hotel from which he unleashed his murderous assault had policies prohibiting guests from carrying firearms.

This provides more evidence that even the strictest of firearm laws, like those on the books in France, aren’t going to stop motivated individuals from committing atrocities against innocents. In France and elsewhere in Europe, we’ve seen mass murder carried out with totally illegal firearms and automobiles, which obviously aren’t illegal, in recent years.

But Feinstein’s admission that new gun laws will fail to prevent future attacks shouldn’t be viewed as a positive. Remember, the California Democrat is one of the Senate’s biggest proponents of harshly anti-privacy surveillance measures Americans were conditioned to accept after the 9/11 terror attacks.

And if Democrats are coming around to the idea that anti-gun laws alone won’t work, you can bet that they’ll double down on unconstitutional proposals in the name of “safety.” In the months ahead, keep an eye out for new legislative proposals aimed at creating something similar to a national gun registry. Proponents of the measure will argue that the only thing that might’ve given Paddock away was the amount of firearms he purchased within a short period of time, thus any American who purchases more than a few firearms a year or large quantities of ammunition must be flagged for further inspection.